Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_1131PL19RDM51089_BRAZIL.pdf

U . S . T R A D E A N D D E V E L O P M E N T A G E N C Y

SUBJECT: COMBINED/SYNOPSIS SOLICITATION: BRAZIL – INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICT) SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES DEFINITIONAL

MISSIN (DM)

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 1131PL19RDM51089

ISSUANCE DATE: February 15, 2019 CLOSING DATE: March 8, 2019, at 1:00 P.M. Arlington, VA Time

This request for commercial item prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only RFP; offers are being requested and written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is being issued IAW FAR 15.203. The Government will offer one award resulting from this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible and is determined, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This procurement is a 100 percent set-aside for Small Business under NAICS Code 541690.

Award is limited to U.S. Firms or U.S. individuals. Contractor and U.S. subcontractor employees used shall be either U.S. citizens on non-U.S. citizens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Contractor use of subcontractors is limited to less than fifty percent of the proposed price. International transportation and insurance must have their nationality; source and origin in the U.S., local lodging, food and transportation in the host country are not subject to this restriction.

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price (Fixed Labor Rate/Labor Day) contract with Cost Reimbursable Line Items for Travel with a 18-month period of performance as a result of this RFP.

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS REPRESENT THE "PROPOSAL PACKAGE" THAT SHOULD

BE RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO THIS SOLICITATION (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (OCT 2018)).

I. INSTRUCTIONS TO RFP RESPONDENTS

The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial, applies to this acquisition with addendum as follows:

1. Proposal Due Date: Your proposal must be received no later than 1:00 PM on Friday, March 8, 2019, Arlington, VA Time. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2. Proposal Submission: Send your proposal by email to contractproposals@ustda.gov which is due no later than 1:00 P.M., local Arlington, VA Time on Friday, March 8, 2019. Proposals submitted by fax or to alternate email addresses will NOT be accepted.

3. Questions Relating to This RFP: All questions concerning this solicitation should be directed to Tyrone Johnson at contractproposals@ustda.gov . The question cutoff date is 1:00 PM, Arlington, VA Time on February 21, 2019. Please reference the Solicitation Number in the Subject Line of your email.

4. Notice Regarding Suspension/Debarment/Ineligibility: Any contract awarded to a contractor who, at the time of award, is suspended, debarred, and ineligible for receipt of contract with Government Agencies or in receipt of a notice of proposed debarment from any Government Agency, is voidable at the option of the Government.

5. System for Award Management (SAM) Database: All Contractors must be registered in the SAM database via https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ in order to be eligible for contract award. Lack of registration in SAM will make an RFP respondent ineligible for award as described in FAR 52.204-7. However, do NOT delay submission of your proposal pending receipt of a CAGE code.

6. Special Contract Requirements: This Request for Proposal (RFP) includes the following additional contract terms and conditions:

CONTRACTOR FOLLOW-ON (INELIGIBILITY): The Contractor and its subcontractors shall be ineligible to compete for, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, USTDA funded activities that result from this contract. USTDA reserves the right to grant a waiver, based upon FAR 9.503, if preclusion of the contractor or its subcontractors from the follow-on activity would not be in the Government's interest.

This restriction shall remain in effect for three years from the completion of this contract.

The contractor agrees to include this provision in all subcontracts to this contract.

7. Contract Clauses: The clauses at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items and 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items, apply to this acquisition.

8. Responses Shall Be Submitted In TWO Separate Volumes As Follows:

VOLUME I(a): TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

**No pricing information shall be included as part of the technical proposal. All pricing information shall be included in a separate volume as noted on page 5 of this RFP** mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov mailto:contractproposals@ustda.gov https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/

Technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages in length. Any additional pages will not be evaluated.

(a) The technical proposal shall clearly describe relevant technical background and expertise performing activities of similar scope and complexity as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and specifically to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure modernization, e-government platforms, and cybersecurity. The RFP respondent shall effectively demonstrate relevant experience and expertise with at least 5 years’ experience in developing Terms of Reference and budgets to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance.

(b) The technical proposal shall also clearly describe relevant technical knowledge of emerging economies and work plan/approach for assessing project viability and implementation risk as it relates to the PWS. The RFP respondent shall effectively demonstrate experience implementing ICT projects in emerging economies and shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance.

(c) Proposals will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content. Proposals that merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient. RFP respondents who fail to meet the minimum technical requirements of the solicitation will be rated as Unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

The RFP respondent(s) shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. RFP respondent(s) are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference in order to circumvent the page limitation. Please submit the technical proposal as a searchable PDF.

The following documents are not included in the page limitation:

a. Cover Page

b. Table of Contents

c. Executive Summary: Although this section will not be evaluated, if included, it should allow technical reviewers to quickly understand the critical elements of the proposal including the most salient features of the RFP respondents’ technical vision and approach, the key personnel and capabilities to accomplish the desired results. This section shall be limited to 1 page. Any additional pages will not be reviewed.

d. Resume/Curriculum Vitae (CV): Resumes/Curriculum Vitae (CVs) as part of the proposal, may not exceed 2 pages per person. Any additional pages shall not be reviewed.

VOLUME I(b): PAST PERFORMANCE:

a. Relevant Past Performance Information:

i. For all RFP Respondents submitting a proposal:

RFP respondents shall submit a list of no more than three past performance references within the past five years, consisting of the contract number, contract type (preferably fixed-price contracts), the entity (federal, state, or local Government, or private sector) for which the work was performed, a summary of the relevant work, and the name of the person (e.g. contracting or technical) to be contacted with their address, telephone, and email address. Past performance will be considered relevant if the contract demonstrates relevant experiences that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source, to include the U.S. Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and may contact customers other than those identified by the RFP Respondent when evaluating past performance.

RFP respondents are authorized to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the RFP Respondents' corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the RFP Respondent's past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

1. For RFP Respondents WITH existing and relevant USTDA past performance (see definition of relevancy in a.i. above)

Per a.i. above, if some or all of the submitted three past performance references are from USTDA, USTDA will attempt to retrieve records for the referenced past performance effort either from the U.S. Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or from records internal to USTDA or from both. No further action is required by the RFP Respondent.

2. For RFP Respondents WITHOUT existing and relevant

USTDA past performance

Submit the Past Performance Survey (Enclosure 3) to its submitted three references (see a.i.) for completion. The references (not the RFP respondents) must return the completed survey to the email address indicated no later than the closing date of this solicitation. The RFP Respondent is solely responsible for ensuring the survey is completed and returned by the respective references on or before the deadline. Any past performance survey returned directly by the RFP respondents may not be considered. The survey includes instructions that must be reviewed and followed carefully. Responses must be typed into the provided, editable Microsoft Office Word Document Past Performance Survey (RFP Enclosure 3).

In the case of a RFP respondent without any record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondents, in this case, shall be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

VOLUME II: PRICE

Price Proposal:

(a) RFP respondents shall submit their price proposal using Standard Form (SF) 1449- Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. Each RFP respondent should ensure the CAGE CODE and DUNS Numbers are placed in Block 17A and complete blocks 24 (with pricing information), 30A, 30B, and 30C.

(b) RFP respondents shall also submit a breakdown of the price proposal in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet complete with traceable formulas. The price proposal excel spreadsheet must be accompanied with narratives (to support the price proposal) in a word document. ALL PRICE

NUMBERS SHALL BE ROUNDED UP, (NO CENTS).

II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

a. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL: The following sub-factors are of equal importance:

Sub-Factor 1: Relevant Technical Experience and Expertise

The RFP respondent's relevant technical background and professional experience performing activities of similar scope and complexity as it relates to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and specifically to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure modernization, e-government platforms, and cybersecurity, shall be evaluated. The RFP respondent shall effectively demonstrate relevant experience and expertise with at least 5 years’ experience in developing Terms of Reference and budgets to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance. The RFP respondent is encouraged to use specific examples, as applicable, to illustrate technical capabilities and expertise as it relates to the PWS.

Sub-Factor 2: Experience in Emerging Economies

The RFP respondent's relevant technical knowledge of emerging economies and work plan/approach for assessing project viability and implementation risk as it relates to the PWS.

The RFP respondent shall effectively demonstrate experience implementing ICT projects in emerging economies and shall be evaluated to determine the likelihood that the RFP respondent can successfully perform the contract requirements and the degree of the risk of non-performance.

b. EVALUATION FACTOR 2: RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recency of the Offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, if proposed, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source, to include the U.S. Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and may contact customers other than those identified by the RFP Respondent when evaluating past performance.

Because of the wide variety of past performance history of individual Offerors, the Government is not required to ensure that an equal number of references be obtained for each Offeror. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the Offerors.

In the case of an RFP respondent without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that the RFP respondent may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The RFP respondent, in this case, shall be rated as "Neutral" - which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

c. EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PRICE:

The Government will evaluate price to determine the following:

Completeness: All information required by the solicitation has been submitted and is accurate.

Reasonableness: Price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR.

Price proposals found to be unrealistically low (an indication of “buy – in”) will be ineligible for award. The evaluated price will be used in the tradeoff analysis between price and non-price factors to determine best value. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price.

All evaluation factors, other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important that cost/price. As technical merit of the proposals becomes more equal, cost/price may become a determining factor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings: Technical factor and sub-factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessments: Past Performance factor shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the RFP respondent will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the RFP respondent’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the RFP respondent will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the RFP respondent’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Best Value Award Determination

The Government will make an award to the RFP respondent whose proposal conforms to the PWS requirements and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the RFP respondent who gives USTDA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced RFP respondent, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced RFP respondent merits the additional price.

The Government may award based on initial proposals received, without further discussions.

Accordingly, each RFP respondent should submit their proposal to the Government using the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range.

Only one award will result from this RFP. Proposals that do not address all requirements presented in the PWS may not be considered for award.

//Signed//

TYRONE JOHNSON

USTDA Contract Specialist

Enclosures:

1. Standard Form 1449 and Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2. Sample Pricing Worksheet

3. Past Performance Survey